370 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 
classical Greek and both occurences are in the Cyclops of 
Euripides, 45 and 61. x^°VP £L is the form in P. at Bacch. 
106, x^or/pzi with ov suprascr. in C. Cf. Wilamowitz, Anal. 
Eur. p. 47. Hermann on this passage, reasoning from the 
analogy of m66fjprf$, decided that x^°VP £l was to be read 
here. For onr passage we must assume a co-ordinate form 
j/1 or/poj>, although it does not occur elsewhere. It were 
possible to read in the Xp. 17. x^-°VP £ 5 or X^-°VPL to bring 
it into harmony with Bacch. 106. There was no reason 
why the author of Xp.n. should have made a change and 
he doubtless found xAoVpov in his MS. of Euripides. 
2. 1084. P. svAsijuoj,. But Xp. 77 2260 vAijuoy svAeijuos is a arfcct- 
Asyojusvov. vAipoS is said to be found in frag. 395. 34. 
Cf. Wilamowitz on this line in Bruhn’s edition of the Bac- 
chae . 1 And Doering rightly notes (Phil. XXV. (1867)) that 
v\ijuo$ agrees better with cpv A/1 7 six £ of 1085 and strength¬ 
ens the idea of 6iya, while evAsijuos seems an unnecessary 
epithet of the rarer}. EvA.siju.oS could easily have arisen 
from vAi/u 05 by reason of the pronunciation. Inasmuch as 
vAijuoS is rightly constructed (cf. XPV&ijuoS, dorajuoS, etc.), 
occurs elsewhere (?) and suits the context better, while 
evAeijuoS is as least somewhat suspicious in its formation, 
Bruhn inserts the former in the text, while Wecklein de¬ 
cides also in its favor. 
3. 1353. The line in P. has only five feet. The probable completion 
of the line, redress, was suggested by Kirchhoff from 
Xp. 77 1701 redrraS. This emendation has been adopted 
by Schoene and Bruhn. Other editors have proposed 
other solutions of the difficulty, while Paley desired to 
reject the verse entirely, redress seems the simplest 
emendation and the only one that has the slightest 
authority. 
4. 787. P. reads Aoyaov hAvgov. But the Xp. 77 2277 uAvsir Aoyaov. 
Nauck preferred to change to hAvgov Aoyaov. The use of 
the infinitive in the Xp. EL. seems justified by the difference 
in meaning, as Doering (Phil. XXV.) has shown, but the 
transposition can be due only to one of two causes. 1 . 
Because the author of the Xp. II. found the words in their 
transposed order in his MS. of Euripides; or 2. Because 
1 1 have been unable to find the citation. On careful inspection of 
the references to the fragments of Euripides in Bruhn’s edition of the 
Bacchae it is not at all evident what edition he made use of, as the num¬ 
bers correspond in no instance with the editions wuthin my reach, viz. 
the older collections of Matthiae and Dindorf and the editions of Wag¬ 
ner and Nauck. 
